Our New EU President and High Representative

It´s finally time to make a post on the post-Lisbon Treaty full ratification era, albeit one long overdue.

What´s the name of our new EU President again? Van Rumpey? Rumpole of the "new" Old Bailey? Oh, indeed not, damn, it´s actually Van Rompuy! How dare I begin my post with such an error and terrible example of British ignorance to the European project! Well, I might as well keep the error now; it sounds rather funny, and if we can´t keep our humour through these troubled and disturbing times, we have little else!

It has taken me some time to get over the shock of the sudden reversal of the Vaclav Klaus´s decision to fight the Lisbon Treaty. Granted, the overwhelming collective might of the 26 might have been too much, but I fear we lost a perfect and unique opportunity to expose this project for what it is. Not unless Vaclav Klaus is complicit to the project, as conspiracy theorists would claim. I won´t venture there but will try to stick to certain facts.

Let´s examine some of them. He is an ardent Euro-sceptic. He could have fought this until the day they impeached him, thereby exposing the project. Only he truly knows the reason for turning his back on his own principles. We can judge him for that hypocrisy only - in all other things he had no obligation, and thus I´ll reiterate, as I have done before, that we cannot blame Klaus for the fact that Britain has signed away even more of its sovereignty.

The deed is done. The Treaty of Lisbon amending previous Treaty texts, essentially bringing the rejected constitution into reality, comes into force on December 1st. Another sad day just around the corner - the good thing however is that being a Tuesday and close to final exams, I´ll be too busy preparing those and observing World Aids Day to worry too much about the Treaty entering into effect. I won´t need it splashed all over the papers in my face - I´ll quietly contemplate the defining moment; the death of large tracts of British political ideology and culture, in a more tranquil setting, from far far away.

Ushering in the Treaty, we saw the appointment of the new EU President and High Representative (a.k.a. Foreign Minister) yesterday. I am ready to comment on the whole saga. I am glad that those who argued for a Chairman´s role for the President as supposed to global showman won that argument. But to be honest there were evils to be had everywhere. Let´s mention them in turn:

a) By opting for a Chairman´s role for the President, this is surely, to borrow the wonderful headline from an article today in The Independent, the "path to least resistance." Typical EU strategy - condition people to getting used to the situation slowly; the big boys come later.

b) Choosing a President from a small country as supposed to a large one keeps smaller states in line. Belgium is most deserving, as the state that turned itself over to the EU from the beginning, and as the state that could become the sovereign EU if its national government continues along its current path of instability. Is it really crazy to imagine? Sovereign territory is all we need - Belgium would make the perfect Washington D.C., or Mexico D.F. This was a spontaneous thought that occurred to me late last night - and it certainly doesn´t hurt to consider all possibilities - let´s wait for the evidence to manifest itself.

c) The new EU President is a federalist - it couldn´t have been otherwise.

d) France and Germany showed that they still run the show behind the scenes. They got their man, unlike when they didn´t get their Belgian man Verhofstadt to succeed Prodi as Commission President in 2004.

d) The British position - Blair was impossible in the end because the UK is not a member of the Euro or Schengen area. What I find most curious is that there appears to have been the eternal assumption that one of the two jobs would go to the British. Why was this so? If the two jobs are to be shared between small and large states, why were contenders from other large countries not ever taken seriously? The British media spoke a foregone conclusion, and they were right to do so.

I personally believe that the perfect way to keep a Euro-sceptic nation glued to the EU project, especially when one considers the likely entrance of a Euro-sceptic British government in 2010, to be to appoint one of its countrymen to the heart of the project. Europhiles are now rejoicing at the increased British influence and voice at the heart of the EU; I actually see a woman who is committed to upholding the EUROPEAN interest, and shall not answer to any national government. Let´s not forget this overriding fact please. There is no such thing as national influence in Brussels - this can only come from the European Council composed of national leaders. Chairing the meetings of foreign ministers, she won´t be able to increase Britain´s influence - her job will be to influence Foreign Secretaries to the EUROPEAN interest. Point made. The glue is only one way - no increased voice gluing the EU to Britain, but plenty of glue keeping us from wrestling power back from Brussels without a tougher fight. The fact that she is Labour through and through makes the incoming Conservative government´s relationship with the EU even more challenging.

I believe overall that this is a Franco-German ploy to walk the path of least resistance, and to keep the British in line with a plum job. But to close this blog entry quite pointedly there are two remaining things to say - both are linked to this annoying concept known as democracy - but I´m sorry, it must be mentioned. First of all, there is now an unelected Commission, unelected President of the EU Council and an unelected High Representative with responsibility for an "External Action Service" as well as security policy. Do we need any more evidence of the loss of democracy in this project? My mind keeps going back to a comment I read earlier that to be undemocratic, the EU must in turn make its constituent states behave as such - well I think we´ve seen plenty of that since the rejection of the EU Constitution in 2005.

Finally, I´m going to quote from the book immediately turned upside-down and to my left side sitting on the desk. Entitled "The Great Deception: Can the European Union survive?" by Christopher Booker and Richard North, on page 543, in relation to the successful agreement of a European Constitution text, it is stated:

"These hundreds of pages wove the recipe for a system of government as complex as any the world has ever seen. It´s real ingenuity, as had been the case since the launch of the ´project´ half a century before, lay in the extent to which it left all the outward institutions of national governments in place, while hollowing them out from within. It was a system of government which, while preserving some of the outward forms of democratic accountability, through the presence at its centre of elected politicians and through the European Parliament, was in fact almost wholly unaccountable to the peoples in whose name it would be claiming to act."

The new European Constitution enters into effect on December 1st.

Thanks for reading.

Lisbon Treaty SECOND Vote October 2009...

I am blogging rather late on the whole Lisbon Treaty issue.

Aside from being busy, I wanted to give myself some time to absorb various perspectives from the press, as well as decide for myself my position given the vast range of commentary available.

However, the blatant fact is that I haven't been able to blog because I feel truly sickened by what's going on. Previous posts on the Lisbon Treaty remain consistent with this one - I am essentially against anything that puts substantial powers into the hands of the unelected. I feel that given British history, and its pivotal moments such as 1649 and the absolutist-wannabe James II in 1688, and the civil war and subsequent Bill of Rights in 1689, that RIGHTS evolved for good reason.

I have felt proud of the notion and idea that a Brit instinctively knows his or her rights - although that does not always mean literally. We have been comfortable with the idea that we didn't need our rights written down, documented, and in our face - rather offensive was the idea for anyone to tell us our rights - we just "instinctively" knew.

And so the question of rights yet again becomes a pertinent one. The Lisbon Treaty, with respect to my limited knowledge and understanding, (because I am not a lawyer) does indeed appear to seriously threaten what we consider to be fundamental English/British freedoms. I am worried for the future of trial by jury and presumed innocence until proven guilty, especially when coupled with some of the dranconian measures now in place across our wonderful democratic "EU" - NOT to even mention the attack on our own civil liberties from this Labour government.

I see here my most passionate political issues delicately intertwined. For the EU with the kind of powers it will assume under Lisbon is an attack on the British understanding and culture of civil liberties. On the one hand, I do blame the EU establishment. Their increasing political and economic power over this country does certainly bear fruit. However, the blame must be apportioned on the British government/political establishment, and the vast swathes of Euro-cash in which they swim. To cash in traditions that were justly fought for, could, as one newspaper put it today (05/10/09) be the "ultimate betrayal in history." However, I would beg to differ, and cite the complete destruction of civilisations (such as the Aztecs by the Spanish) as far more of a disastrous event. However, with the impact of Lisbon still unknown, I may well change my mind in the near future to come.

Casting my mind to the Irish, I don't wholly blame them. They made the decision that they wanted to. What saddens me is how they were completely manipulated into doing so. Crisis, burned economically into their hearts, threats of EU money running dry, scare tactics and horror stories - and the biased-ness of the entire media and political establishments - all perfectly combined into one nasty cocktail of scaremongering and fear tactics. And it worked perfectly - after all, what better way to control a country if not through economics? Make a crisis, and reap the rewards, depending on where you sit in the power triangle.

To reiterate, it is incredibly sad how our Irish brothers and sisters (yes, brothers - for the hostility in my eyes that is so famously stereotyped appears to me to be one-way, aimed AT the English, and yes, English not British) have given into this fear. Did we all forget the scaremongering the last time? The exposure that the Irish Commissioner in Brussels hadn't even read Lisbon? What really makes me despair in the idea of how the choice to say yes to Europe would reinforce Ireland's position in the EU, and free it of the "influence" of others - a blantant reference to the United Kingdom if there ever was one. In actual fact I concur with the idea that Ireland will become MORE irrelevant in the Union, probably labelled as the land of the Celts.

Overall, I must respect the decision of the Irish people, and if it is really true that such hostility remains towards the English, as well as the Irish political establishment, (I take Daniel Hannan's view on this) that the undemocratic EU is the only way out, then so be it. It was their choice to make, and the No camp did their best under estremely biased circumstances, with a political and media machine that they did well to survive with, let alone try to convince.

From one sad story to the next. The focus after all must be the United Kingdom. It is not the fault of the Irish that we were not granted a referendum, and anyone blaming them for our woes are terribly misguided. Grant the Irish their wish, lament the clear impact on our country, but the blame for this lies squarely with Brown. Lament the sick nature in which he turned up late to sign away the sovereignty of Parliament. Lament the shame to stand with his fellow European leaders in a photocall, where he would be standing on the side so they can airbrush him out after May 2010 from the official photo. Betrayal yes, and unforgivable.

The question becomes what to do now. David Cameron is quite rightly under pressure, and must spell out his position. But I believe that despite this pressure his approach is rational, if not extremely difficult to maintain. This really is a day-by-day battle now. Heaven knows the pressure on the Polish and Czech Presidents to sign the treaty already ratified by their Parliaments. I don't want to say the word "inev.." but the turn of events will certainly come to be historically significant. I believe that the media has highlighted the dilemma well - what will Cameron do if Lisbon is ratified in all states? It truly will become a choice of whether we stay in the EU, if Cameron wants to force a referendum.

But I believe that at heart that David is Pro-European (I believe many Tories are) but the idea of the EU (Please note, not Europe) has always been an economic one for the British, and resistance to Political Union is not unusual! So to read today about a possible change to the European Communities Act is a step in the right direction - after all, this is no different to the German approach that would require their Parliament to decide to veto EU laws coming into Germany. The problem, however, lies in practice............with EU law already established as superior, how do you override that? With Lisbon creating the mechanism to make changes without the explicit consent of member states, how do you override that? With news of an EU Common Security Policy, how do you override that? (a.k.a ID cards through the back door) With news of France and Germany wanting greater cooperation in the EU, do you just withdraw altogether and let this club be what it wants to be? Or do you sacrifice British sovereignty to maintain influence over the club? Many burning questions.

Finally, we must consider the international ramifications of Britain and Lisbon. The US is already cavorting with Russia, China and Japan - and openly talking of a G4. China and Japan talking about beginning the road to some form of Union - really? Who would they talk to in Europe? The signs are discouraging - the UK would completely be absorbed and lose international prestige and influence at the hands of an unelected EU President. Is this really in our long-term interests? Many say we should just accept the reality, but no, we create our reality with our decisions everyday, and Lisbon without proper consultation, education and a referendum decision, is plainly wrong.

I haven't even mentioned the impact on UK politics, where being governed from the Continent will surely spell the end of the Union - the Scottish and Welsh Governments may be pleased, because in line with the EU's principle of subsidiarity, they would be seen as the recognised powers in their "region" - and the UK Government an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy through which to govern - however they will just end up like Ireland - giving away power in the name of distrust of London, and becoming insignificants in somethin much bigger and more powerful than they are. However if it means that the Scots can make new songs to celebrate Europe Day in their own language - surely it's worth it?

I will stop writing on Lisbon right now, as I must return to burning the midnight oil. However I close with one thought and one interesting idea written in a national newspaper. My personal thought is that the world is awash with a history of the rise and fall of Empires - I see another one coming - why do we feel the need to consolidate, supposedly based on the common good, (or in the past by sheer imperalism and domination) just to reach critical mass, become too big, and blow apart in spectacular fashion? A thought I must invest more time in.......

The interesting idea I mentioned is that of riding on a train. We are passengers, and we were always asking questions to the conductor. He/She would always tell us where we were going, how long it might take to get there - there was a good relationship. Now with Lisbon, the reply would be to where we are going, "that is no longer your business, but ours." Of course I have interpreted the story for myself, and must find the relevant link, but the idea is poignant and struck me. No longer the UK's business, but that of an unelected President and his best friend in the unelected Commission.

God save the Queen for as long as the monarchy survives, for as long as the Union survives, and for as long as our relationship with our Commonwealth friends survives.

God Save Britain and the UK!!

-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052881/Who-killed-Britain-A-new-book-reveals-land-Queen-Elizabeth-II-ruled-longer-exists.html

So, we don’t live in the same Britain that her Majesty ruled over more than 50 years ago! I imagine a lot of Brits are gasping for air trying to swallow the fact that a national newspaper finally had the balls to publically declare (albeit not very British but nonetheless absolutely necessary in this case) what we could have told the Queen herself at about anytime between 27th June 2007 and the present day, or indeed many moments between May 1997 May 1998 and the present day. (Just to give some credit to the Labour government – they did after all make a huge one-off payment to the national debt and secure the Good Friday agreement, which of course must be respected, unlike the first achievement, where debt has risen to record levels under our rather “prudent” Piss-it-all-up-the-wall Prime Minister.)

Your Majesty, I am not one to be rude or impolite but please stop listening to all the bullshit (also known as “nonsense”) that your government feeds you about the perfect, harmonised Britain in which we live. (A Britain that just happens to require the world’s most dense network of CCTV cameras to live in and you still don’t feel safe – however save a space in your purse for your future ID card – it can save you!) I implore you Majesty to come back from la-la land with the other Royal Teletubbies; I implore you to wake up and smell the.............well, how do I tell you...............the Royal tea bag! (However, “Get ‘wit it” would be the more modern translation, and it’s amazing that the Microsoft Word spell checker didn’t even underline “wit’ it” as a grammatical nor a spelling error) Please Majesty, wake up from la-la land using those two sugar cubes in your small cup of tea and rule over us with some sense of purpose and direction; leave the rather innocent touchy-feely nature of your world and embrace us here in your Britain wholeheartedly, for we desperately need some kind of leadership that injects a sense of collective identity back into the British people – that is a polite way of saying national identity. We all know it is going “down the drain”, “to the wall”, “to pot”, “up the creek”, “AWOL”, “kaput”, “pear-shaped”, and “rather doo-lally”, etcetera, etcetera – don’t we?

The Daily Mail in its article of Wednesday 10th September was not afraid to spell out some rather uncomfortable home truths in its depiction of “what we all knew anyway, but were too afraid to say” tone of voice. (For the fear of offending some other undefined group of people - that must be respected - because they are defined as different by the very fact that they are undefined - and we are not as such.) Let’s applaud the newspaper for trying to publicise what must have difficult in the asphyxiating politically-correct environment in which it must print its ink and cause the felling of many more trees. However, this might be one example of when such an environmentally unfriendly activity could have been justified, not too dissimilar from another major piece of news from the same day regarding the Greenpeace activists that successfully were able to claim in the courts that their criminal damage to a coal-fired power plant was justified in that they were attempting to prevent the even-bigger damage caused to the planet by the Co2 emissions of the plant.

Hoorah!

So we have two examples in one day from the same newspaper not afraid to stick two fingers up to extreme political correctness for a change. Of course, the sceptic might say that all this publicity and temper-tantrum attitude will make little difference – point duly noted – but when we wake up one day and our sense of national identity that has made us feel so proud of who we are, secure, and with a sense of belonging to a group disappears, then I don’t want to hear anyone say that they weren’t told. However, always one to look on the bright side, I guess that the ultimate loss of the British identity (and thus the political union on which it was founded) will give the PC brigade a mission, sense of purpose, and a real big mammoth of an event to pour their pens over for years to come. They can waste money, time and paper all they want trying to figure out how it could have happened. (Oh I just realised; it did all of a sudden dawn on me - excuse me for not explaining the term “PC” – this equals “politically-correct” – I am genuinely sorry to any group that felt excluded by their lack of knowledge of abbreviations) Back to the point, I wonder if the PC brigade will recognise that for once in their artificially-created bio-bubble (fast running out of air because nothing can imitate Mother Earth nor the true art of breeding bullshit) that they didn’t actually consider the British people, because if they do their jobs well, they can save £500,000 of public funds and still discover that this is the true answer. Learn from the lesson of spending £10,000 to tell us that the best biscuit to dunk in our tea was a digestive, oh mighty pen-pushers! (No offence meant to the actual researchers who completed the investigation.)

To close my moaning session, I address you again your Majesty by saying that I absolutely, without the shadow of a doubt; without feeling the guilt of my most non-PC act to date, look forward to seeing you on your arrival from la-la land. The kettle is on and the biscuits are waiting. Have a safe trip on the Royal plane!

Your most faithful subject but pissed off citizen of the state you are supposed to uphold and represent. (God Save the Queen!)

(Just to tell readers for the record, only two errors were highlighted by Microsoft Word in this text – the first was “Teletubbies” and the second was the “lally” in “doo-lally.” Not bad at all I’d say.)

(Final final point: Sarcasm is a most British craft, so I must apologise for any offence caused to any group of people - and yes this includes those who feel offended but don’t quite know to which group of offended people they belong yet. Please address any comments on a postcard to the usual address. Goodbye for now.)

-

Partial Exams and St. George's Day

A quick post before sleeping to update myself and the world on events. Eyed up with work at the moment as I am grading third partial exams, but the weather is getting hotter and the days of clear skies are set to be here for a while to come.

I wanted to write a small message today especially because it was St. George's Day - here we are again, England's national day, and were it not for a few newspaper articles that mention it, I think it would be hardly noticed. The articles I have read however I have found myself largely agreeing with. The shame to celebrate one's nationality because of the fear of being called a racist, or politically incorrect, whilst other member countries of the UK do so with pride, thus personifying England as the one "who asked for this," really struck me. I took these kinds of views from the newspapers as a bit "Little England" but I was further surprised to find myself agreeing slightly with them. I would be the last to call myself a Little Englander, but it has occurred to me today that this shame that we feel to celebrate being English, as we also now do British, is ridiculous.

Something does indeed have to change. This is about identity. And I have sensed for a long time the gradual loss of identity in the UK and the loss of cohesion between its peoples. What I believe is that any people should not feel ashamed to express how they identify themselves - or, should not be ridiculed for doing so, especially if it is about a national identity. After all, the nation state is the dominant form of government of the world, and England has become the land that has gone from a state of voluntary patriotism to downright loss of knowing what holds us together.

We talk about values but then we cannot express them in an environment of zealous political correctness. We are right to celebrate all of the saints days of the UK, but come on it is better to have no St. George's Day at all I think than to carry on this situation. I think that people for years haven't known what it means to be English simply because our identity became since 1707, that of Great Britain and thus British. With the Union ever increasingly under threat since the days of devolution, this is the source of the English identity problem. Let's either find a way to define Englishness and celebrate St George. Or leave the whole day altogether in history, and reassert our correct place and identity in the Union.

Either way, let's not be ashamed to express something of what we are because of political correctness. That is the greatest danger to us all. I feel that we are British and one nation, but should the future hold a separation for the Union, we must allow it, for as Scotland freely decided to join the Union it must freely be allowed to leave. Wales must also be respected should it make the same choice, and Northern Ireland should it change its mind about remaining in the Union.

This is of course the worse-case scenario, for I am today above all British and proud of the Union and the one country we have achieved together. But the English must be prepared to either commit itself to the Union without fear, or should the Union break, be ready to stand on its own two feet once more.